Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rufino Antonio Reyes Lopez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in 2023 as an unaccompanied minor. Immigration authorities took him into custody on August 4, 2026, and served him with a Notice to Appear charging him as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). He remained detained while removal proceedings were pending.
Reyes Lopez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, along with claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that his detention without a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and constitutional due process. The respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that he was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Reyes Lopez was an applicant for admission because he was present in the United States without having been admitted. Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the court concluded that § 1225(b)(2) therefore required his detention during the relevant immigration proceedings.
The court further held that the mandatory detention did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It reasoned that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and that an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute. Because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention until specified proceedings conclude, Reyes Lopez was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing. The court also rejected his as-applied challenge, granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, denied his habeas petition and related relief, and stated that final judgment would be entered for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present without admission is treated as an applicant for admission and may be subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
- The court held that detention under § 1225(b)(2) without a bond hearing did not violate substantive or procedural due process.
- An as-applied due-process challenge requires supporting authority and circumstances sufficient to overcome the statute’s authorization of continued detention.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit authority treating noncitizens who entered without inspection as applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention. For habeas practitioners, it indicates that statutory and facial due-process demands for bond hearings are unlikely to succeed in the Southern District of Texas when § 1225(b)(2) governs.
The ruling also underscores the difficulty of an as-applied challenge absent authority showing that the petitioner’s particular circumstances create a constitutionally distinct case.